Current Lewis Hamilton

A place to put all the posts from all the other threads primarily but love him or hate him, and even for the indifferent amongst us this is the place to discuss the marmite that is Lewis Hamilton, to learn a thing or two about his rise, talk about those controversial, genius or mad moments and something that i am bemused by, the recent articles that suggest something quite different to my perception of what's going on. Any experiences of meeting LH?

Brundle had to write a Lewis Hamilton article recently and in my tweets (which were probably ignored) I asked him to talk about LH the driver not LH the personality. It seems that you can't have one without the other.

So as a starter for ten, here is a fairly recent LH article. Posts should not be limited to this link but it can get some discussion going. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13755883.stm

The only banned topic as it is clearly ridiculous involves these four things "Glock" "2008" "Brazil" "conspiracy"

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

Tony Jardine and Bob McKenzie were on Talksport with Richard Keys and Andy Gray about an hour ago talking about F1. According to Tony Jardine, Hamilton and Massa are crashing into each other deliberately as they know the cars are safe enough for them to get away with it. The 'feud' has been going on since 2008 when Hamilton 'stole' the title from Massa at Interlagos.
The nonsense these 'experts' were rolling out was laughable at best, wheeling out the usual cliches about Hamilton being Senna to Button's Prost, Button is continuously thinking whilst driving whereas Hamilton gets in the car and rags the arse off it and is incapable any racing intelligence. It was so bad I couldn't help listen.

 

[Slyboogy]

Sounds like an interesting thing to listen to

I have Sky, and I hope judging by what you wrote, these two don't join the Sky team

 

[Hamberg]

disappointed in Jardine if that's his take, I thought he was slightly respectable.

 

[Lewywo4]

Like for example please if they are so called outrageous and unneccessary

I don't see how he should behave like a world champion is anything outrageous

It was a complete ridiculous and absurd statement for Mansell to make regarding Hamilton when he said, " But what's the point of a championship when you only have 18 or 20 cars running? When I won the title, I beat 25 other cars, that makes Lewis's title 20% less credible than mine. "

I wonder if Mansell has the same feeling about Button's championship, because he also only raced against 20 cars in 2009, like Lewis when he won his championship.

I'll bet all the tea in China, that Mansell would never....never...make a comment like that regarding Jenson!

 

[Cookinflatsix]

Mansell also said that Lewis had been bankrolled by McLaren from the age of 8 and that it was an unfair advantage over other drivers

Completely wrong and idiotic, bordering on acute paranoia

 

[teabagyokel]

I don't think anyone is going to accuse Mansell of making any sense when he claims that he beat 25 other cars. There was a bloody Andrea Moda on the grid in Monaco!

Nigel, face it. You beat one car. And it had Riccardo Patrese in it.

Hamilton beat Massa, Raikkonen, Kovalainen (his Patrese), Kubica and Heidfeld in cars with reasonable pace - and the two Ferraris were generally faster than McLaren!

 

[Clinton]

According to Tony Jardine, Hamilton and Massa are crashing into each other deliberately as they know the cars are safe enough for them to get away with it.

They aren't crashing into each other deliberately, but they are far from doing their best to avoid crashes with each other. If the cars were less safe, they would both try harder to avoid contact. Seems like common sense.

The nonsense these 'experts' were rolling out was laughable at best, wheeling out the usual cliches about Hamilton being Senna to Button's Prost, Button is continuously thinking whilst driving whereas Hamilton gets in the car and rags the arse off it and is incapable any racing intelligence. It was so bad I couldn't help listen.

Hamilton certainly sees himself as being like Senna. That cliché exists for a reason.

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

They aren't crashing into each other deliberately, but they are far from doing their best to avoid crashes with each other. If the cars were less safe, they would both try harder to avoid contact. Seems like common sense.

You could say that about any racing incident from the past 15-20 years - 'he could have tried harder to avoid contact'. To say they could try harder to avoid contact is accusing them of not trying hard enough to avoid contact in the first place, and to say that this apparent laissez-faire attitude is down to improved safety has no foundation whatsoever. In other words 'i'll sling the car up here and if I hit him, I hit him. At least I won't die'. For the life of me I cannot understand how that conclusion can be reached given that the comings-together were nothing more than relatively minor racing incidents. No more, no less. Singling out Hamilton v Massa in this way is quite frankly tabloid sensationalism at it's best, and to say it's deliberate is moronic of Tony Jardine and Bob McKenzie in the extreme. You'd think by some people's reactions/comments that those two were the only ones who have crashed into other drivers in the past 5 years

Hamilton certainly sees himself as being like Senna. That cliché exists for a reason.

I'm assuming you're referring to the interview where Hamilton said his rivalry with Alonso was the new Senna v Prost? hardly the same is it? And if I remember rightly you yourself posted claiming that Hamilton had no racing intelligence, so i'm not all that surprised that you agree with that particular part of the cliche, even though, again, it has no foundation.

 

[Lewywo4]

Mansell also said that Lewis had been bankrolled by McLaren from the age of 8 and that it was an unfair advantage over other drivers

Completely wrong and idiotic, bordering on acute paranoia

Many of Lewis's detractors always like to bring up Mclaren's support of him, starting at the age of 8, and choose to forget that the same thing occurred with Vettel, who also received full support from Red Bull drivers development program, also starting at the age of.....8.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

Except Lewis wasn't backed at age 8, he had already proven himself against other potential candidates, and was backed years later

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

And McLaren didn't blindly back Hamilton no matter what as certain quarters would like others to believe. They withdrew backing in 2005 and only when Hamilton and his father were talking to Williams did McLaren resign him.

 

[Lewywo4]

Except Lewis wasn't backed at age 8, he had already proven himself against other potential candidates, and was backed years later

 

[Clinton]

You could say that about any racing incident from the past 15-20 years - 'he could have tried harder to avoid contact'. To say they could try harder to avoid contact is accusing them of not trying hard enough to avoid contact in the first place, and to say that this apparent laissez-faire attitude is down to improved safety has no foundation whatsoever. In other words 'i'll sling the car up here and if I hit him, I hit him. At least I won't die'. For the life of me I cannot understand how that conclusion can be reached given that the comings-together were nothing more than relatively minor racing incidents. No more, no less. Singling out Hamilton v Massa in this way is quite frankly tabloid sensationalism at it's best, and to say it's deliberate is moronic of Tony Jardine and Bob McKenzie in the extreme. You'd think by some people's reactions/comments that those two were the only ones who have crashed into other drivers in the past 5 years

I'd be interested to see some statistics on frequency of contact in F1. I seem to recall Jackie Stewart saying that drivers were more wary of any kind of contact in his time. Obviously it's a relative thing, not a matter of there never having been contact in the past.

Schumacher is probably the only other driver who has had as many collisions as Hamilton and Massa this season, and that's explained by a combination of his being an older driver (older drivers do tend to have more collisions for whatever reason) and being an uncompromising defensive driver (which he has always been).

Hamilton in particular has excellent reactions and had very few crashes in his career until halfway through the 2010 season, since when he has crashed into other drivers or they have crashed into him rather often in comparison to most other drivers on the grid. Therefore it makes sense to single out his crashes, which often involve Felipe as well, as a point of discussion.

I'm assuming you're referring to the interview where Hamilton said his rivalry with Alonso was the new Senna v Prost? hardly the same is it? And if I remember rightly you yourself posted claiming that Hamilton had no racing intelligence, so i'm not all that surprised that you agree with that particular part of the cliche, even though, again, it has no foundation.

Also the helmet colour, and the comments about wanting to match Senna's achievements, and comments about how he wishes he could have raced against him in particular.

I haven't claimed that Hamilton has no racing intelligence; I said that he may be lacking in political intelligence (e.g. in dealing with his team and the media). His racing intelligence isn't one of his strong points in particular - obviously as an F1 driver he does have plenty - but that's a different matter to what I was talking about earlier in the thread.

Obviously the pundits will tend to aim for the lowest common denominator when the audience isn't specifically F1 fans. However Hamilton's comparative lack of form under the 2011 regulations does suggest that he preferred the less tactical "rag the arse off it" version of the formula. And the comparison to Prost and Senna makes sense insofar as Hamilton sees himself as being similar to Senna and is faster than Button over a single lap, but is more closely matched by him in the races and sometimes appears less capable of managing the tyres and so forth.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

I haven't claimed that Hamilton has no racing intelligence; I said that he may be lacking in political intelligence (e.g. in dealing with his team and the media). His racing intelligence isn't one of his strong points in particular -

So pray tell, how did Lewis beat Alonso to second in 2007 as a rookie

Was he lucky, or has he had a knock on the head since to render him less capable? Alonso is generally regarded as one of the top political strategists on the grid

 

[Clinton]

So pray tell, how did Lewis beat Alonso to second in 2007 as a rookie

Was he lucky, or has he had a knock on the head since to render him less capable? Alonso is generally regarded as one of the top political strategists on the grid

On that occasion he had the team behind him, but his good relationship with Ron Dennis probably didn't owe that much to his political abilities.

Obviously all of the other abilities that he possesses render him highly capable of winning titles. Sometimes strategising isn't needed at all. I just suspect that some of the problems he is facing at this particular time in his career would be less severe if he was a better strategist.

 

[Josh]

So pray tell, how did Lewis beat Alonso to second in 2007 as a rookie

Was he lucky, or has he had a knock on the head since to render him less capable? Alonso is generally regarded as one of the top political strategists on the grid

Think you missed an important bit here:

His racing intelligence isn't one of his strong points in particular - obviously as an F1 driver he does have plenty

 

[Bill Boddy]

So pray tell, how did Lewis beat Alonso to second in 2007 as a rookie

Was he lucky, or has he had a knock on the head since to render him less capable? Alonso is generally regarded as one of the top political strategists on the grid

It may be that Hamilton breaking the team agreement in Hungary cost Alonso points.

 

[Slyboogy]

It may be that Hamilton breaking the team agreement in Hungary cost Alonso points.

Please don't start this again...

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

It makes sense to single out his crashes, which often involve Felipe as well, as a point of discussion..

Discussing them is fine, accusing Hamilton and Massa of crashing deliberately (Tony Jardine's and Bob McKenzie's words, not mine remember, I wasn't paraphrasing) is ridiculous. Accusing them of not trying hard enough to avoid crashing into each other is ridiculous. Again, any driver who has hit another car could have tried harder to avoid racing incidents. If you read my post again, you'll notice I didn't say they weren't worthy of discussion, I made it clear my position that they were racing incidents. There is a huge difference between a racing incident and two drivers deliberately crashing into each other.

Also the helmet colour, and the comments about wanting to match Senna's achievements, and comments about how he wishes he could have raced against him in particular.
.

None of which says Hamilton "clearly sees himself as being like Senna".
Anyway, i've made my position clear regarding Jardine and McKenzie's comments and having read your posts I can see the angle you're coming from and therefore i'll disagree and leave it at that

 

[Porceliamone]

After wading through this thread anyone would think that Lewis Hamilton is a broken shadow of a man languishing at the back of the grid, getting in the way, crashing into people and being a good all-round pariah in general.

Get some perspective. He's won races this year, is still mathematically capable of second place in the WDC and still has the backing and support from one of the best teams in F1.

Yes, he might be moping around a little of late, but he has just split with his long-term girlfriend and is obviously going through some personal issues. Crikey, who doesn't get down when their seemingly stable relationship goes wrong, for whatever reason?

The issue is that the media/some people here/the general public make them out to be much bigger and dramatic issues than they really are.

Some might even say finishing 5th in the WDC is a pretty decent result (if you really think about it), but that doesn't sell newspapers or gain airtime.